The Indicative in the Imperative
The Indicative in the Imperative
On Augustinian Oughts and Cans
Those who reject “ought implies can” (OIC) may have good reason to do so, but their case has been weakened by their reluctance to offer an alternative to that dictum. Jesse Couenhoven shows how OIC plays an important role in moral theory because it limits moral demands by excusing agents from wrongdoing under certain circumstances. Opponents of OIC would strengthen their case by offering a replacement dictum that plays the same theoretical role. Drawing on the compatibilist thought of Augustine, Luther, and Jonathan Edwards, this essay offers a replacement, dubbed “ought implies apt.” Thus, what an agent ought to do is tied to what is fitting for that agent, given the agent’s design plan. The fruitfulness and plausibility of this proposal are tested by its ability to illuminate a number of cases often used in discussion of OIC, including moral dilemmas.
Keywords: Augustine, Edwards, Luther, ought, can, compatibilist, moral dilemmas
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
